As can be seen from the above post, the final verdict of the series, a 1-1 draw does not quite make it as simple as it sounds.Originally Posted by Son Of Coco
This topic, as to who got the better of the other team in the series has spilled over a lot of threads.
Indians played very good cricket and it was not their fault that the bowlers they had were not upto the best. India did not ask them to play with a Brad Williams or a Bracken or a half fit whichever player. If they wanted, they could have played Kasporwicz or some one else they really thought would be worth the place in the side.
India missed Harbhajan Singh, the main destroyer in India who would obviously not be as destructive in Australia. India does not seem to complain about missing him or any one else.
The pitches were batting paradise. True. But the Aussies could have chosen Perth or prepared tracks to suit them further. Its not India's fault.
Why cant the Aussies digest India played good cricket and almost beat them in their own back yard. At the end of the series, the Aussies were happier with a drawn series than the Indians. That, for me says a lot about which team 'almost' won the series.
India did not enforce the follow on and there was a missed chance by Patel apart from an umpiring error (which does happen in cricket - its a part of the game). That was not the fault of the Aussies to any extent.
Steve Waugh made the most of the opportunity he got and salvaged a draw of a series. Got the fare well he deserved.
Its no secret that before neutral umpires came into play, most countries had biased umpiring, the Aussies being no exception.
We saw some good batting from the Indians appreciated by one and all from Greg Chappell to the average Aussie on the street. We saw why the Aussies are so tough to beat.
For me, it was a true verdict, a 1-1 draw, even though Indians did come close to an improbable away series victory. Its cricket.